If you are a Palestinian or Saudi, you might probably wish to see George Bush re-elected. If you are an Iraqi, Egyptian or Syrian, your preference could be to see John Kerry in the White House. Though it is the American people who will cast votes and make the decision, the rest of the world has a big stake in the outcome because the man in the White House influences not only America’s affairs. He influences world events.
The people monitoring the American election from outside the United States are just as divided as the voters themselves are on the person they favor or dislike. With the gap between the two candidates narrowing, betting on either may prove a gamble.
Everyone has his own concerns and aspirations when it comes to the American presidential election. Palestinians are never satisfied with any American president. In the first month of a president taking over, they start wailing and complaining, declaring that the former occupant of the White House was a lesser evil. Kerry outmatches Bush in his support for Israel. His record as senator speaks of a man who blindly supports that country. The Democratic Party has always been more pro-Israel than the Republican. Kerry hopes to stay for eight years in the White House and this makes him even more obliged to satisfy the Israelis.
In contrast, since Bush cannot be elected for a third term, he does not have to be overly concerned about pressure groups. Further, he is the only American president who has publicly committed himself to the establishment of a Palestinian state. His main problem remains Yasser Arafat. In his second term, he will be less prone to pressure. It is instructive that it was in his second term that Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians the greatest hope in their history — of liberating their land from occupation.
As for the Saudis, no matter how angry they seem to be at Bush, they need to make a realistic evaluation of the situation. The anger may be because they may not have realized the real danger they were exposed to after Sept. 11. Bush acted wisely when he rejected media and political pressure targeting Saudi Arabia as “the source of the new fundamentalist threat.” Had Kerry been president, the course of history could have been different. We would have discovered that Bush’s demands like making some changes in the school curriculum, toughening visa requirements or monitoring the so-called charity organizations were not the worst things that could happen to us.
There are many among us who believe that Bush’s defeat could lead to an era of better US relations with the region, especially those countries facing mounting American pressure.
First, there are the Iraqis who, despite the complaints appearing in the Arab media, are in their majority happy with what Bush did. The liberation from the oppression they were living under was worth the war. However, if Bush is to serve for another four years, some Iraqis may view this as an impediment to any attempt at reconciliation with the angry Iraqi groups and disgruntled Europeans. For them, Kerry’s election could ease the pressure.
The Syrians, more than any other Arabs, would wish to see Bush go down in the hope that it would end the pressure on their country. But the reality is that if Kerry wins, he will not reconcile with Syria because of the many differences with Damascus, the security of American forces in Iraq in particular. He may, however, not venture into unnecessary military gambles.
The Egyptians have always preferred change. Every new American president shows interest in the Egyptian role hoping this would help him resolve regional issues. But, even this valuable Egyptian mediation role will not benefit Bush who continues to show a strong dislike for Arafat although he has managed to end the crisis with the Libyan Leader, Muammar Qaddafi and has directly intervened in Sudan since Cairo is still reluctant to engage in Iraq. An Egyptian street charged by the media with anti-Bush sentiments will want to see Bush out of the White House.
This Egyptian mood is no different from the Europeans’. Bush’s defeat will make it easy for those who want to reconcile with the American government without risking losing face. This is a position that best suits Washington’s former allies before the invasion of Iraq, the French and the Germans, who will need to cooperate with Washington in Iraq and the war against terrorism. The Europeans need reconciliation but it will not be easy for them to change their earlier positions with Bush in office.
